Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Mutually Assured Destruction would stop a country from using nuclear weapons, yes. But I'm talking more along the lines of Islamic violence, we already see suicide attacks from extremists around the Middle East. So in that case, what would stop Iran from selling or giving the weapons to terrorists to use against Israel (yes, I know that this happened already from Soviet fallout, but why give them more opportunities to aquire them?) or if an even more extreme government took over and used the nuke as a (figurative?) suicide weapon?

Terrorists don't need Iran to get nuclear material. It would make it easier, yes, but we can't truly do anything to prevent this from happening besides direct intervention. That's why I feel that nuclear sanctions are useless, because if a guy (Iranian president) is insane, and wants nuclear weapons, sanctions aren't going to stop him.

That's the thing about democracies; people will vote for what thy think they want. What they vote for might not be what they actually need, but it would be what they asked for.

If an extremist gets in the Whitehouse, it is for no other reason than because the public voted that way. As a foreigner I watch with disinterest knowing either way it would not help the rest of the world much.

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

That doesn't change what I said, which is that the type of leader you get in a Democracy is determined by what kind of people elected him/her.

And since most of America don't actually vote, they deserve what's coming by not choosing.

To believe that the Tea Party and the Republican Party is the party of the rich, is ignoring the tens of millions of middle class and families who side with them(at least more so than the Democrats) and is just plain ignorant. It is the same stupid argument as those on the right who say that he Democratic Party is the Party of the welfare group. Neither is true.

What, so it's, these people side with them = the party actually looking out for their interests? One doesn't necessarily follow the other. I am trying to think of anything these Repubs have done that benefit those tens of millions who (mistakenly, I believe) support them. I wouldn't call a refusal to let the Bush tax cuts end even for the wealthiest, or even to close tax loopholes, something that helps these everyday folks. Nor would I call their drive to dismantle people's safety nets in a financial crisis something that makes them anything other than the party of the rich, something they've been wanting to do at least since the days of Goldwater. And how does a majority of a party opposing more financial regulations, ones that could've helped prevent the 08 recession if Bush hadn't gone on his deregulation binge, and even opposing a Consumer Protection Agency, say that they care anything about...well, consumers? ie most people?

The only populist slant I can see in today's GOP is their social ideology, which of course appeals to the tens of millions of social conservatives in the party. I'm sure they all love a Texan governor who prays to god to solve his state's problems. But financially? You're going to have to scrounge up some pretty strong evidence to convince me our national GOP doesn't work for the wealthiest elite.

The vast majority of Republicans are not wealthy. That is a fact that you cannot deny. Republicans also arent out to punish the rich and raise their taxes to make thinga 'fair' for everyone else. Republican voters want equal opportunity, but not equal outcome. There is a big difference between the two. They dont care about class warfare. They are not voting Republican because they are looking for government help. They want less government not more. And what government they do want, is that of a.strong military. I am speaking of the voters mond you. Not the politicians. the Democratic Party platform is not what Republican voters want or support.

It is your choice to understand reality or to ignore it. Just because you believe that you know better on what the 50 million Republican voters should want is very arrogant on your part. What you want and believe and advocate, is not what they want, believe, or advocate. Both sides view things very differently.

As I have stated many times in the past, between the two parties, the Republican Party is the closest to what I believe. Though that isnt saying much, considering how badly both parties are tied up with special interests. I do not believe in the Democratic Platform. It goes against everything I have ever believed and I cannot support positions that I am completely against.

As I have stated many times in the past, between the two parties, the Republican Party is the closest to what I believe.

In terms of Social Policy or Economic Policy? No, you can't choose both - unless y'really mean it.

When it comes to social polices -- I've come to realize -- after being a member of a church body with heavy compliance to the Bible. Things like - anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, and other such "emotional" issues can be dealt with by churches on their own. Surely, societies around the churches can "evolve" to accept social policies not in compliance with the church. But at least, the government cannot force a church to accept unwanted policies, under protection of the First Amendment.

I'd have to say. Ever since Roe v Wade, that concept faded away with heavy emotional strife and attachment.

Hopefully I can save up enough to trade NASDAQ and NYSE before the elections officially begin. There will be plenty of short positions to call, no matter which politician says what.

Honestly speaking, the US elections are starting to look like a farce, after the Congress's makeover. It doesn't matter who runs the country, they are heading for a Roman plutocracy in the next decade.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

HHonestly speaking, the US elections are starting to look like a farce, after the Congress's makeover. It doesn't matter who runs the country, they are heading for a Roman plutocracy in the next decade.

Don't worry you will. In the next decade of artificial organ transplantation giving Big Corp cats infinite lifespan, they will think of ways to keep you "consumer units" alive.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

In terms of Social Policy or Economic Policy? No, you can't choose both - unless y'really mean it.

When it comes to social polices -- I've come to realize -- after being a member of a church body with heavy compliance to the Bible. Things like - anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, and other such "emotional" issues can be dealt with by churches on their own. Surely, societies around the churches can "evolve" to accept social policies not in compliance with the church. But at least, the government cannot force a church to accept unwanted policies, under protection of the First Amendment.

I'd have to say. Ever since Roe v Wade, that concept faded away with heavy emotional strife and attachment.

I dont believe in the Democratic Party's social policies either. I believe the majority of social issues should be handled by the states. Take gay marriage for example. I would not vote for a federal gay marriage ban. However i would support a state bill saying that marriage would be between a man and a woman, while allowing civil unions for gay couples. Infact i did just that by voting for prop 8 here in California several years ago.

I also hope to see roe v wade changed in the future, and again left the decisions to the states.

I do not support 99% of Democratic Policies and am very consistent on my beliefs.

The vast majority of Republicans are not wealthy. That is a fact that you cannot deny. Republicans also arent out to punish the rich and raise their taxes to make thinga 'fair' for everyone else. Republican voters want equal opportunity, but not equal outcome. There is a big difference between the two. They dont care about class warfare. They are not voting Republican because they are looking for government help. They want less government not more. And what government they do want, is that of a.strong military. I am speaking of the voters mond you. Not the politicians. the Democratic Party platform is not what Republican voters want or support.

It is your choice to understand reality or to ignore it. Just because you believe that you know better on what the 50 million Republican voters should want is very arrogant on your part. What you want and believe and advocate, is not what they want, believe, or advocate. Both sides view things very differently.

As I have stated many times in the past, between the two parties, the Republican Party is the closest to what I believe. Though that isnt saying much, considering how badly both parties are tied up with special interests. I do not believe in the Democratic Platform. It goes against everything I have ever believed and I cannot support positions that I am completely against.

I tend to agree with your *assertions* of what many "republican voters" are and want (though there's a much bigger range in the GOP than you seem to want to admit, some of whom would contradict those definitions). However, if such is the case - you're not getting candidate choices from the GOP that reflect those desires. Its not serving *your* interests to vote for plutocrat pawns or religious theocrats.

Do you see anyone in the current candidate field for the GOP that reflects your interests? One that doesn't make fundamental errors in their assertions (basic math, misrepresentation of facts, making things up) or one that isn't a plutocrat minion (*cough* Romney)?

I mean, in my case .... Huntsman and Pawlenty have some potential, I spent most of the 70s, 80s and early 90s in or near Ron Paul's district. He's about as clear as it gets in doing what he believes in. It just depends on whether one thinks it is realistic or not. Personally, I think every Congress needs at least one Ron Paul just to remind "Caesar he is but mortal". However, from my view over the last 40+ years, the last 15 years has been a spiraling decay of mediocrity and incompetence of the GOP from the perspective of Main Street. Not that I can't rip the Dems apart as well (ala that Dylan Ratigan video rant that is making the Internet rounds).

I tend to agree with your *assertions* of what many "republican voters" are and want (though there's a much bigger range in the GOP than you seem to want to admit, some of whom would contradict those definitions). However, if such is the case - you're not getting candidate choices from the GOP that reflect those desires. Its not serving *your* interests to vote for plutocrat pawns.

Do you see anyone in the current candidate field for the GOP that reflects your interests? One that doesn't make fundamental errors in their assertions (basic math, misrepresentation of facts, making things up) or one that isn't a plutocrat minion (*cough* Romney)?

I mean, in my case .... Huntsman and Pawlenty have some potential, I spent most of the 70s, 80s and early 90s in or near Ron Paul's district. He's about as clear as it gets in doing what he believes in. It just depends on whether one thinks it is realistic or not. Personally, I think every Congress needs at least one Ron Paul just to remind "Caesar he is but mortal".

You made it sound like the US voting process is making a choice for the lesser of the evils.

Ok, that is stating something obvious.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

The vast majority of Republicans are not wealthy. That is a fact that you cannot deny. Republicans also arent out to punish the rich and raise their taxes to make thinga 'fair' for everyone else. Republican voters want equal opportunity, but not equal outcome. There is a big difference between the two. They dont care about class warfare. They are not voting Republican because they are looking for government help.

Oh? Are these the same people who say "get your government hands of my medicare?" Sorry to break it to you, but of course they want government help. Look at someone like Megyn Kelly even. Tirading against "liberal entitlement programs" and "welfare" and "handouts" for who knows how long...until she has a kid of her own, and suddenly greatly values maternal leave. That's the problem with the whole ideology: "if it doesn't affect me, it's the nanny state interfering. But if it does, it's vital for our civilization." Same with the politicians who bitch about earmarks and whatnot, then gladly accept federal funds (I believe Michelle Bachmann's husband's "business" takes Medicaid funds for god's sake).

It is your choice to understand reality or to ignore it. Just because you believe that you know better on what the 50 million Republican voters should want is very arrogant on your part. What you want and believe and advocate, is not what they want, believe, or advocate. Both sides view things very differently.

Multiple polls show Fox News viewers are the most consistently misinformed. Plus, the culture of today's GOP seems to be convincing people that what's good for corporations is good for everybody (see Mitt Romney's recent "corporations are people my friend"), which is just factually a load of horsecrap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I dont believe in the Democratic Party's social policies either. I believe the majority of social issues should be handled by the states. Take gay marriage for example. I would not vote for a federal gay marriage ban. However i would support a state bill saying that marriage would be between a man and a woman, while allowing civil unions for gay couples. Infact i did just that by voting for prop 8 here in California several years ago.

I also hope to see roe v wade changed in the future, and again left the decisions to the states.

I do not support 99% of Democratic Policies and am very consistent on my beliefs.

Let me tell you where we'd be without all those social policies you claim to hate. The 1950, 1900s, or the 1890s. There.

Oh? Are these the same people who say "get your government hands of my medicare?" Sorry to break it to you, but of course they want government help. Look at someone like Megyn Kelly even. Tirading against "liberal entitlement programs" and "welfare" and "handouts" for who knows how long...until she has a kid of her own, and suddenly greatly values maternal leave. That's the problem with the whole ideology: "if it doesn't affect me, it's the nanny state interfering. But if it does, it's vital for our civilization." Same with the politicians who bitch about earmarks and whatnot, then gladly accept federal funds (I believe Michelle Bachmann's husband's "business" takes Medicaid funds for god's sake).

Multiple polls show Fox News viewers are the most consistently misinformed. Plus, the culture of today's GOP seems to be convincing people that what's good for corporations is good for everybody (see Mitt Romney's recent "corporations are people my friend"), which is just factually a load of horsecrap.

Let me tell you where we'd be without all those social policies you claim to hate. The 1950, 1900s, or the 1890s. There.

i have been very consistent on my beliefs. Just because you can point out a few names or instances, does not make my points less valid. With all the negative things you can bring up about the Gop, I can do the exact same on the Democrats. Hypocrites are hypocrites regardless of what party they claim to belong to.

Why dont you tell me what the Democrats do, that Republican voters would agree on, vs the Republica. platform?

For the last time. Why I have voted Republican in the past, is either because I believed in what they said and did, or it was to keep the democrat who i viewed as a worst option, out of office. Lesser of two evils if you will. I will not.vote for a Democrat. They do not want the same America that I want. We are polar opposites.

Vexx: perhaps you missed one of my earlier posts. I stated that at this point, I will not be voting for any of the Republicans who were in the debate last night. I also will not vote for Rick perry. My dad met him years ago in Dallas and said he was a cocky little man, and not the kind of person we need in the White House. Of course he also said Obama was a cold sort of guy who looked down on people when my dad met him as a senator years ago. The vast majority of these politicians.arent.worth a crap.

I find it really hard to understand the Republicans, and American conservatism generally. I find European political parties pretty easy. Heck the Democratic party is pretty conventional too. But the republican party is all kinds of crazy. The closest I can think of is the UK conservative party, but the conservatives are pretty aristocratic, so it makes sense. The republicans are... I don't know.

I think the weirdest part is the way there's such an unholy Alliance between the religious right and business interests. Usually pro-business parties don't give a damn about religion, in fact they're often as not liberal.

I suppose it may be down to the fact that there's a vacuum in the US that socialists usually occupy. The US is perhaps the only country I know of without a popular socialist party.

The weirdest thing is the anti-tax thing. I mean no country likes taxes, but I can't think of any group that is so hard set against taxes. We're not talking demon worship here. Taxes are taxes. Suck it up and move on. Sometimes taxes have to be hiked. I'll take good roads, police, schools and hospitals over low taxes any day.

The weirdest thing is the anti-tax thing. I mean no country likes taxes, but I can't think of any group that is so hard set against taxes. We're not talking demon worship here. Taxes are taxes. Suck it up and move on. Sometimes taxes have to be hiked. I'll take good roads, police, schools and hospitals over low taxes any day.

Yep, same here. I was shocked when I heard a Republican told me in so many words that taxes is the Anti-Christ. Did not understand what he meant then, and still don't. Taxes pay for government services, that's why it is for. Anti-tax is a position I can't comprehend.